Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

thefickler writes "Microsoft is taking a former employee, Miki Mullor, to court for securing a job at the company in order to steal information that would help with a patent infringement case he filed against PC makers Dell, HP, and Toshiba (in which Microsoft quickly became enmeshed). And while it appears that Mullor did the wrong thing, some pundits are asking: 'If you believed that your patent had been infringed, wouldn't you be tempted to do the same thing?'"

No, but you can steal someone else's labor, by not paying them for the information they produced, or the metal car pieces they welded, or the floors they sweeped, or.....

Theft of labor is a human rights violation and if a person does produce a new idea or item, and XYZ corporation takes that idea/item without compensation for the labor involved, a crime has been committed.

If you make something material and someone steals it, you no longer have it. If you have information and somebody copies it, you still have your copy. You lose exclusivity as to who know that information, but that exclusivity is not a material thing and cannot be stolen (since the person who makes a copy does not gain that exclusivity.)

Material and information are totally different and it's a real shame that lawmakers aren't clever enough to see something so simple. That or they are too busy collecting campaign funds.

>>>If you have information and somebody copies it, you still have your copy.

Well then I guess we should have kept those unpaid laborers in the South. After all, they didn't "lose" anything when they picked cotton all day. They still had all their material possessions (private hut, clothing, etcetera). The fact they labored for free is just a-okay, right?

No.

And neither is it okay for a modern-day "master" corporation to take man's labor without pay, whether that man picks cotton, or creates a sch

So if they had not been slaves, but free individuals like us, it would have been okay for the plantation owners to not pay them? I'll assume you'll say "no" and ask for you to explain why it's necessary to pay people for picking cotton?

>>Why yes, it's called contract law. Been around, like slavery for a long time.

Well the Supreme contract of the land, the U.S. Constitution, states the people should receive payment for their books, patents, or other useful arts. i.e. Microsoft is wrong to steal another's man patented ideas.

Well then I guess we should have kept those unpaid laborers in the South. After all, they didn't "lose" anything when they picked cotton all day.

They lost the cotton. The difference between tangible property and information is that if someone else takes your tangible property then you don't have it any more, and if someone takes information then both of you have it.

Put another way: only one person can use a boll of cotton. An unlimited number of people can use an idea. Someone else using my idea does not preclude me also using it; Microsoft publishing a book I wrote does not preclude my also publishing it. It may make it impractical for me to profit from the book I wrote, but that falls under the category of "unfair competition," not "taking away a piece of property that I own." It's wrong, and it's also fundamentally different from stealing.

The language of copyright holders - "own an idea," "intellectual property," "stolen ideas," "piracy," is calculated to make the public forget the fundamental differences between ideas and objects, and support laws and policies that equate intellectual property with physical property. This is to the benefit of copyright (and patent) holders, who can then rely on the government to bear the cost of enforcing their copyrights, among other benefits.

The preponderance of people who claim that we have a "right" to "own" and profit from ideas shows how well this brainwashing is working. Apparently it goes so far as to make some think that a company can "steal" profits that haven't even been earned yet. The reality of intellectual property cases is quite different; see Polaroid v. Kodak. [nytimes.com]

As an aside, the value of an idea can be destroyed when more people know it - this is why we have trade secret law.

Someone else using my idea does not preclude me also using it; Microsoft publishing a book I wrote does not preclude my also publishing it. It may make it impractical for me to profit from the book I wrote, but that falls under the category of "unfair competition," not "taking away a piece of property that I own." It's wrong, and it's also fundamentally different from stealing.

I'll never understand why Slashdot, primarily a group of code-authors are so willing to shoot themselves in the feet and claim that they have no property rights in their works.
To your example, that we should use unfair competition tort law instead of trespass property law, I pose this easy hypothetical: Mr. A, with $10 to his name, "copies" your software. He then sells it to Microsoft for $100, and Microsoft publishes it as part of Windows, destroying your ability to sell it. Provided Microsoft can show reasonable ignorance of Mr. A's actions, you have no possible tort claim against them. Your only action in tort is against Mr. A, and the most you can recover is $100.
Under property law, you'd have the right to exclude Microsoft from using your idea, same as you could kick Bill Gates off your lawn.

The language of copyright holders - "own an idea," "intellectual property," "stolen ideas," "piracy," is calculated to make the public forget the fundamental differences between ideas and objects, and support laws and policies that equate intellectual property with physical property. This is to the benefit of copyright (and patent) holders, who can then rely on the government to bear the cost of enforcing their copyrights, among other benefits.

The preponderance of people who claim that we have a "right" to "own" and profit from ideas shows how well this brainwashing is working.

It's one of the few explicit powers of Congress in the Constitution, important enough that the Founders put it right there in Article I, Section 8. It's also an affirmation of a right that has existed for a few thousand years. The "I don't believe in intellectual property (in spite of making my living through its creation)" meme you're espousing is the new one, and yes, it does show just how well brainwashing works.

I don't claim authors have no rights. I only claim that copyright is not the same as property rights, and to confuse the two is a serious misrepresentation of both the law and the business climate.

No, it's a serious misrepresentation to claim that copyright does not involve property rights. Intellectual property in general has groundings in contract law (non-disclosure agreements), tort law (misappropriation, unfair competition), and property law (first to discover [see Pierson v. Post, a.k.a Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers], right to exclude).

Because the code itself is not how we make a living. We make a living solving problems, not with copyright on stagnant works. A carpenter makes his living as much with his hammer as I do with code. It won't do anything without someone skilled operating it.

Because the code itself is not how we make a living. We make a living solving problems, not with copyright on stagnant works. A carpenter makes his living as much with his hammer as I do with code. It won't do anything without someone skilled operating it.

Can I have all your code for free, then? Since I'm not a "skilled operator", I wouldn't be impacting your business, even if I give it out free to your customers, right?

I'll never understand why Slashdot, primarily a group of code-authors are so willing to shoot themselves in the feet and claim that they have no property rights in their works.

Perhaps because protecting imaginary property at the expense of real people is illogical.

Honestly, I'm quite sick of all this intellectual property prattle. It's the ultimate hubris to claim ownership of an idea. I suppose all of human knowledge proceeding you had no influence on "your idea".

Once again I bring-up the example of the author who spend a Year of his life writing a book. Many of ye seem to think he has no right to get paid for that year of labor, but instead should just give-away the book & labor free.

I strongly disagree.

And I wonder about the intelligence of people who think authors should not get paid.

How in the world does a 100+ year copyright term "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

It doesn't, which is why there are many of us reasonable people that think the most important piece of copyright reform that could be legislated right now is returning the copyright period to something sane (generally in the 10-25 year range).

I'll never understand why Slashdot, primarily a group of code-authors are so willing to shoot themselves in the feet and claim that they have no property rights in their works.

In as much as it is true, it is probably largely for two reasons. One, because we'd rather be free to stand on the shoulders of giants (or pyramids of pygmies, for that matter) than to have to stand on our own, even if that meant exclusivity in our work. Would you like to have to develop your own operating system, compiler, drivers,

Would you like to have to develop your own operating system, compiler, drivers, and every library you use in your code... or to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for each one? How much code would you develop on your own if every library and support tool you used cost cash money?

With no copyright or patent protection, everything would be closed-source and encrypted. You'd have to develop your own OS, compiler, drivers, and libraries, because everyone would horde theirs... and trade secret law tends to protect the large corporations, not the small players.

As an aside, the value of an idea can be destroyed when more people know it - this is why we have trade secret law.

Does this imply that the most valuable idea is one that nobody knows? I have to ask how valuable is something that has no purpose. It is only until a consciousness realizes the idea that it has a purpose. And I would argue that the more people who know an idea, the greater its purpose. And hence, the more valuable it becomes.

...the most you can recover is $100.

The flaw in your example is that Microsoft is a monopoly. Ignoring what company it is, if your idea was sold for $100, then that's the free market value, and likely how much you're goi

yeah, those evil copyrights. They stop me from being able to sell GPL code without giving back the source. I hope they abolish copyright soon because it's so evil.

There is always some joker who thinks the GPL is all about copyrights.You are wrong.

The GPL is referred to as the "copyleft" because it is a hack of the intended purpose of copyright - to reduce the freedoms of the end user of software. Stallman's goal is to get the software industry to the point where the automobile industry is today. Nobody would buy a car with engine compartment welded shut, the market would not tolerate it. Similarly, the market for software should get to the point where nobody would

Well, you may be correct but that doesn't prevent you from being an idiot. You seem to forget that the reason we need the GPL in the first place is because of copyright laws!

IOW, without copyright law there wouldn't be a need for the GPL.

Certainly without copyright law you could "abuse" the GPL. Now, what would that mean "abusing the GPL" in a world without copyright? Hmm. A world where anyone could copy any source code they like for any reason.

>>>Nobody would buy a car with engine compartment welded shut, the market would not tolerate it.

Actually the market tolerates it quite well. No the hood is not welded shut, but companies DO have trade secrets. For example, Toyota and Honda have very closely-guarded secrets about how their hybrids work, such that when Ford wanted to build a hybrid SUV, they had to license the patent from Toyota.

And that's entirely fair. The engineers at Toyota put-in many, many years worth of labor - they should

Well, actually no one so far disputed the case Microsoft makes. Mullar does [gizmodo.com]:

In response to numerous requests for comments regarding a lawsuit filed against me in Washington, I would like to make the following comments.

I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 relating to software anti-piracy technology, and Ancora is my company.

I applied for my patent in 1998. In 2002, the patent issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In 2003, I approached Microsoft and had several discussions with a Microsoft lawyer and employees of Microsoftâ(TM)s Anti Piracy group about my invention and the benefits Microsoft could realize by using it. Microsoft declined and said they had no interest in my invention.

After 3 years of working at a start up without salary and benefits, and with a first child about to be born, it was time for me to move on and look for a job to support my family. We ceased business operations at Ancora in 2005, and Microsoft was the first company to extend me an employment offer. I accepted. In early 2006, I moved my family to Seattle from Los Angeles, bought a house and focused on my new career at Microsoft. I enjoyed my job very much, and Microsoft commended my work and even promoted me.When I joined Microsoft, I notified them in writing of Ancora and my patent in both my resume and in my employment agreement. In its complaint against me, Microsoft withheld the portions of these key documents that show this.

At the same time I was employed at Microsoft, but unknown to me, Microsoft was developing what is now known as âoeOEM Activation.â OEM Activation is installed on computers made by HP, Dell, Toshiba and others (called OEMs) to prevent piracy of Microsoftâ(TM)s Windows Vista software installed on those computers. This work was being done in a different department at Microsoft.

Now, I personally find there should not be patents at all [stopsoftwarepatents.org]. It is a shame to see the defamation campaign of Microsoft. The case shows that the patent system does not have any benefit at all for software. Small inventors cannot enforce them against ruthless big companies:

OEM Activation is a blatant copy of my invention. In fact, the same Microsoft person that I explained my invention to back in 2003 was involved in the development of OEM Activation.

It is such a shame to me that so many people don't even know the rights and freedoms granted in the United States Constitution.

The "exclusivity" that people get from the discovery of a new idea is guaranteed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

It's that simple. It simply boggles my mind to see so many people who try to discount that. It's there for a reason. Inventors discoveries rightfully should be controlled by the inventor (for a period of time, which is usually 20 years.) There are checks in place that allow others to use those discoveries if the primary inventor does not maintain his "rights" by notifiying the USPTO they wish to do so via maintetance fees. There are also avenues in place to allow the inventor to gain from that discovery via various licensing models.

And, yes, I am an inventor. I spent several years perfecting the technology I now have the patent on after my "inspirational moment" when I put two and two together. I also spent countless hours working on it trying to figure out all the ways in which my idea worked. I then filed the patent, disclosing all the vairous "embodiments" of my invention. If some of you got your ways, all that work and effort would not allow me to even recapture some of my investment.

Someone said it, if that work was allowed to be copied by others without compensation, I in effect, would have done their work for them providing them countless hours of free labor. THAT IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION HAS ARTICLE I SECTION 8!!!

There are two important points there. It is only for the purpose of promoting the progress of science and useful arts, and it is questionable whether software patents do that, and it is for limited times. Patents are for limited times, but copyrights effectively are not.

I personally believe you are wrong. What difference is there between a software patent and a hardwware patent? An "invention" is simply a new way of doing something, regardless of the technology. Software patents seem to me to be new ways (read 'idea') of doing something. In addition, they are also "works" written by someone. So, it would seem that they are actually covered TWICE by the Constitution. As an invention and a work of art. (You might not consider some software art, but I have definetly se

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Exactly; the difference between "exclusive right" and "ownership" is the difference between intellectual property and physical property. Using your patented idea without your permission is violating your exclusive right to that idea. It's not stealing the idea. Some people think the distinction is overly fine but I think it's critically important not to confuse control of an idea with ownership of physical property.

If two people independently cut down trees and use the wood to build cabinets, each of them owns a cabinet. If two people independently come up with an idea, only one of them gets to patent it. So your "right" to get paid for "your labor" can result in your "stealing" the profits of the other guy, who thought of the same thing but applied for the patent one day later than you did. Does that seem right?

Patents and copyrights serve useful purposes. But don't confuse them with physical property.

If two people independently come up with an idea, only one of them gets to patent it.

Wrong. Neither does, because it's only an idea. It' not the application of an idea (an invention) nor the expression of one (which would be covered by copyright).

So your "right" to get paid for "your labor" can result in your "stealing" the profits of the other guy, who thought of the same thing but applied for the patent one day later than you did. Does that seem right?

This case of coincidental independent invention that you seem to think invalidates the whole system - how often do you think it really occurs in practice?

I don't think independent invention invalidates the patent system. I think it invalidates the idea that patents are a natural right and that holding a patent gives some kind of moral superiority to the patent holder. And to answer your question, I think it happens pretty often, which is why Slashdot has a whole category for patent-abuse stories.

True, it is in constitution. But remember that it was not universally liked by the founding fathers. Jefferson in particular did not like it, and argued against it. Some of us wonder if we'd be better of if TJ had won that round.

It's that simple. It simply boggles my mind to see so many people who try to discount that. It's there for a reason....Someone said it, if that work was allowed to be copied by others without compensation, I in effect, would have done their work for them providing them countless hours of free labor. THAT IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION HAS ARTICLE I SECTION 8!!!

It's not quite that simple, because it's part of the US Constitution, and it helps to understand how the Constitution is written. Did you know, for example, that excluding the Ammendments, the Constitution does not specify the rights held by citizens? The Amendments were kept separate on purpose because the writers did not want to talk about the rights of citizens in the Constitution itself. In fact, they specifically didn't want to enumerate citizens' rights at all, but only list some that they were ada

So if have spent the same amount of time inventing something that is covered by your patent without knowledge of your work and did this before you get your patent is published. I should not be allowed to benefit from my own labor?

That would be hard luck, but yes.
It may seem unfair, but first to file has the advantage of being quite clear cut.

There's a big difference between infringing a patent and stealing someone else's labour: when someone does not pay for a welding job or does not pay an employee, a contract between the parties has been breached. However, in case of patent infringement, there is no contract between the parties involved.

In fact, if I invent something independently, and it turns out someone else has already patented that idea, then I cannot use my idea for profit, since that would infringe on the patent. But I have certainly n

>>>in case of patent infringement, there is no contract between the parties involved.

Yes a contract has been breached in the Microsoft case. The national contract known as the U.S. Constitution (and State Constitutions as well) which serves to protect inventors' and authors' labor rights by protecting their labor-intensive creations. See my example below.

>>>There's a big difference between infringing a patent and stealing someone else's labour:

There's a big difference between infringing a patent and stealing someone else's labour: when someone does not pay for a welding job or does not pay an employee, a contract between the parties has been breached. However, in case of patent infringement, there is no contract between the parties involved.

Patent infringement is not under contract law, it's under property law. If you come into my backyard and start digging holes, I can kick you out, even though there was never a contract between us. In the same way, if you trespass on my intellectual property, I have the right to exclude you from it.

In fact, if I invent something independently, and it turns out someone else has already patented that idea, then I cannot use my idea for profit, since that would infringe on the patent. But I have certainly not stolen any labour - quite the opposite.

What did you mean by "quite the opposite"? Did you mean opposite as in THEY stole the labor or opposite as you GAVE them something? Because if I did independent work on project A and you did independent work on Project B (both which coincidentally are the same), you doing your work is not stealing from me, but it is also not the "opposite".

Even when a patent infringement is clearly a case of using someone else's idea, you still cannot call it stealing someone else's labour simply because that person/company MIGHT have made money from it. There's no guarantee that investing in an idea will pay itself back.

You are correct that a new invention may not earn any money - but by taking someone's work, without their permission, you have denied that person the right to make a

Sorry commodore, but you need to look up "theft of labor" again. Copyright or patent infringement is not "theft of labor".

Theft of labor is when you get someone do work by force or deception. If I tell you I'm going to pay you for a job when I have no intention of doing so, or if I make you do work for me at gunpoint, then that's theft of labor. If you've done work voluntarily and I've pulled benefit from that work, after the fact, without your permission, it's a different thing.

Sure you can if the information is in the form of a secret and obtained illegally. Could be a trade secret or it could be a state secret. Once it is stolen it loses its status as a secret and with it potentially significant value to the holder of the secret. That's what spies do, they steal information or more accurately secret information. There may be legal ways to obtain the information an that is not stealing but the illegal methods are colloquially (and accurately IMO) referred to as theft.

A lot of the stuff I produce at work is intangible... just data inside a computer. Does that mean my employer can take my data, and not pay me? LOCKHEED: "Thank you. We downloaded the program off your c: drive using bittorrent last night. No we're not going to pay you for it."

Hmmmm. Interesting worldview these young college teens and 20-somethings have.

LOCKHEED: "Thank you. We downloaded the program off your c: drive using bittorrent last night. No we're not going to pay you for it."

Dude, did you read the intellectual property waiver you signed? Your employer already owns everything you produce. Their obligation to pay you is not based on fair exchange for your ideas, it derives from labor laws that say you work for them and they pay you for your hours on the job. They could fire you tomorrow and then patent your ideas and make a billion dollars.

A lot of the stuff I produce at work is intangible... just data inside a computer. Does that mean my employer can take my data, and not pay me? LOCKHEED: "Thank you. We downloaded the program off your c: drive using bittorrent last night. No we're not going to pay you for it."

Read your employment contract. That is EXACTLY what it says, as it does for almost every employee in the US and most other countries.

Lockmart pays you for your labor whether you produce anything or nothing, you get paid either way. But in case you do produce something, they own it, lock stock and barrel.

Hmmmm. Interesting worldview these young college teens and 20-somethings have.

Interesting worldview these people who haven't bothered to think very deeply about the issue have.

A lot of the stuff I produce at work is intangible... just data inside a computer. Does that mean my employer can take my data, and not pay me? LOCKHEED: "Thank you. We downloaded the program off your c: drive using bittorrent last night. No we're not going to pay you for it."

Hmmmm. Interesting worldview these young college teens and 20-somethings have.

Slashdot is primarily home to programmers and code authors, and yet many of them think that they have no property rights in their creations.
Personally, my suspicion is that it's a clever bit of FUD pushed out by big companies who can more easily defend unfair competition or breach of contract suits than they can defend copyright or patent infringement suits. In the former, all you frequently need is lack of privity between the parties: "I didn't steal your idea. That guy who just declared bankruptcy did. I

Yes, it means exactly that. It's credit card fraud. Also illegal, but not stealing. I would not be surprised if the penalties for $1000 in credit card fraud were totally different from the penalties for stealing $1000 in cash.

Credit card details on an insecure e-commerce server are intangible... the money in their bank accounts is also intangible... does that means credit card fraud isn't stealing? Wicked.

There's a reason the crime is called "credit card fraud" and not "credit card theft" (and the recent term "identity theft" just muddies the water). It's fraud, not theft; the crime is that the fraudster tricks the merchant into thinking that someone else has agreed to pay for the item.

'If you believed that your patent had been infringed, wouldn't you be tempted to do the same thing?'

Has the inanity and anti-logic of the patent system finally become so bad that peoples' basic judgement is now impaired. Has the concept of "Intellectual Property" so twisted the fragile mind of the commentators, and public at large, that we now must see it not only as a fundamental right [blogspot.com], but as (Paraphrasing DeValera) an institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law and morality.

Personally, no, I don't see that a patent is so important that I should break not only the law, but also the trust and confidence other people have in me, simply to defend my rights to some obvious "invention". I may be a little behind the times here, but I can't say I would be overly tempted, no.

Personally, no, I don't see that a patent is so important that I should break not only the law, but also the trust and confidence other people have in me, simply to defend my rights to some obvious "invention". I may be a little behind the times here, but I can't say I would be overly tempted, no.

Not to mention that when it comes to a fight between you and Microsoft, you're going to lose. Not smart. (If the allegations are true, that is).

Of course, if you RTA, he didn't break the law. Moreover, he told Microsoft about the company and the patent in writing, possibly depending on the fact that such writing tends to get ignored.

Moreover, it appears that he allowed his company to lapse (but probably not the incorporation to lapse, since lawyers advise against it), and had basically shut it down due to a complete lack of profits.

Microsoft is trying to make it appear that he broke the law, to cover the fact that they really did break the law. They took his work, and used it without agreed-upon compensation. Now, I too do not hold patents to be natural law. They are only a construct of the current system that we are in, historically designed to profit powerful companies like Microsoft and other King's Friends. But they are a part of our current law, and Microsoft makes heavy use of them. And Microsoft did break the law, stealing his work without agreed-upon compensation, long before Mr. M. ever applied for employment there.

I'd say that this one needs to go for full damages. Possibly triple, if the jury concludes that Microsoft has a history of criminal and corrupt behavior (though that would be harder to prove.) Hmmm... I wonder if there could be a class-action lawsuit by those whose work was stolen (including GNU and WordPerfect and Apple and others) against Microsoft. Go through their code and show that the majority of their work was stolen.

Nah. That'd take an insider to prove it. And then Microsoft would scream bloody murder, even if they had themselves authorized the insider's access.

Now, I too do not hold patents to be natural law. They are only a construct of the current system that we are in, historically designed to profit powerful companies like Microsoft and other King's Friends.

Intellectual property rights go back the Roman Era. And they're historically designed to protect small inventors from the powerful companies. You're a victim of FUD.

I wonder if there could be a class-action lawsuit by those whose work was stolen (including GNU and WordPerfect and Apple and others) against Microsoft. Go through their code and show that the majority of their work was stolen.

Sure. As long as you're in support of class-action lawsuits against GNU and WordPerfect and Apple and others by Microsoft where and if appropriate, after all, good for the goose, right? After all, only the truly naive would believe that (if indeed true) MSFT alone is guilty of this k

Don't draw the patent law into this, Corporate Espionage has been going on for a long time.

No, I would not be tempted t commit a crime for these reasons. That has nothing to do with the patent process; which isn't nearly as broke as many posters seems to think.Of course, many poster don't even understand the most fundamental part of the patent system either.

I mean I could easily go woo-hoo fighting the man here. I got it in me no doubts.
But there is something in legal cases called the Discovery phase and its illegal during a discovery phase to conceal information requested by the court for a case.
If he thought Microsoft had information that would have helped his case his lawyers should have asked for such info in the discovery phase and been done with it.
The spy cloak and dagger stuff is for the movies and just fucks you over in the real world.
If its true he pitched the idea before he was even hired, then don't try to keep working at the same company you are trying to sue. The counter-suit will be coming that is for sure.
Easier than firing him. Sue him instead.

What defines viewing "documents he shouldn't have"? Is that just post facto rationalization from Microsoft? The firm lists as one of its assets a superior knowledge of and huge investment in computer security. Its internal network, on which its documents are maintained, is entirely on software of its own creation and administration. By clear implication, any document which is made available for viewing by any staff member is authorized for viewing by that staff member.

There's no evidence to demonstrate he did these things. So in order for us to assume he's guilty we have to also assume he's precognitive.
It also describes it such that Microsoft "found" the evidence. That's got to be inadmissible, right? No chain of custody there it could just as easily be planted by them.
Hope the trial has some evidence behind it as there's insufficient to point fingers either way, but more than enough doubt to clear him.

According to the Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/espionage.ars), Mullor was a Program Manager in the Windows Security Group. It seems unlikely that he would all of a sudden later discover on chance that Microsoft was putting functionality into Windows that he (and his seemingly defunct company) has a patent that covers it. How is this different that Rambus not telling the standards body (that they were apart of) that SDRAM might infringe on their patents?

IMHO he did a stupid thing by taking that job. He had to sign employment agreements and contracts and they most likely invalidated his claims. And he certainly copied documents he was not allowed to copy as an employee.

If you've filed a patent, and you're about to sue someone I'm guessing generally actually you wouldn't seek employment at a company that is part of it. You know, what with it firstly being a completely transparent move, and secondly because you wouldn't be able to defend your patent when you're in jail for corporate espionage.

But it wouldn't be corporate espionage. So he downloaded documents at work that he had access to as an employee, but that he wasn't supposed to download. As long as he doesn't pass them on or act on them, he can probably be fired, but not charged with anything. However, if the documents contain evidence of wrongdoing on Microsoft's side, that kind of information is not in any way protected by the law. It's not protected by copyright law (the Unabomber tried to pull a stunt like that, claiming that letters he sent to victims shouldn't have been used to track him down because he was the copyright holder), and not protected as a trade secret (because getting away with a crime is not a competitive advantage protected by the law).

As long as he doesn't pass them on or act on them, he can probably be fired, but not charged with anything.

Act on them like use them to file a lawsuit against Microsoft?

The "evidence of wrongdoing" comment you made is a bit far-reaching. It may be covered by whistleblower legislation, but 'acted improperly in a contract issue' (with subjective perceptions) is not likely to be seen as "wrongdoing".

Yeah, after all, it's not as if Microsoft ever steals other companies (cough Netscape, Corel) ideas or software, or been involved in U.S. or EU patent infringement cases and found guilty. I'm sure they are completely innocent with nothing to hide and would comply with a court order to turn-over information, rather than shred documents.

Yep.

The cops routinely use undercover "spying" in order to catch criminals, such as drug traffickers. I don't see why it's wrong to do the same in order to obtain documents prior to their shredding. It might have been smarter to hire a private P.I. (ala Matlock or Perry Mason) to do the dirty work, but otherwise I think you need to do what's necessary to catch the incriminating documents before they become confetti (or before the drugs get flushed down the toilet).

I suppose it all depends on what you see as being the "Right Thing". I would suggest that:

Mullor had been speaking to MS about licensing his idea.

MS turned down his offer.

MS subsequently are found to actually be using aforementioned item.

MS now seek a royalty free* license to continue what they have been doing.

Now, in best Groklaw tradition, IANAL, however this seems to me that when it comes to fairness the guy might have been able to get similar information from 'dumpster diving' and certainly seems to have been vindicated. So what we're really seeing here is:

MS get caught with hand in cookie jar.

Individual seeks recompense from MS.

MS unleash the lawyers and counter sue for good measure.

It would not surprise me if they try their old dirty tricks and try to put the US case on hold whilst they visit global MS friendly courtrooms to get some judgements onside in other jurisdictions just as they did with Lindows.

The sequence of events you list sound similar to what happened with Babylon 5 producer J.Michael Straczynski (jms):

- JMS had been speaking to Paramount about licensing his idea (1992).- Paramount turned down his offer, but kept all his season 1 scripts and bible.- Paramount subsequently are found to be using aforementioned ideas with a near-clone show called DS9.

This happens all the time in the world of television and movies, and I'm not surprised to hear the same thing happens in other industries too. The

Yeah, common. I know a couple of "juvenile" book authors who pitched a series concept to Aaron Spelling which they called "Beverly Hills High." It was precisely the plot that Spelling subsequently used for the first season of "90210." But he never credited them nor paid them a thing. It was total theft. Nor were they able to find a lawyer who would give them good odds going up against Spelling about it.

That's what's so curious about the studios claiming their creative works should be protected from theft. The studios are in large part run by thieves like Aaron Spelling. Their complaint is akin to that of mobsters bothered by any competition with their rackets.

And in software, Microsoft operates largely on their model. It's not that theft is not in some instances unethical. But theft from someone whose own fortune derives largely from theft? Robin Hood was a good guy.